1985 PLP 871 (MLD)

According to a case registered by the police Station Philora District Sialkot vide F.I.R

7. No.122 dated 10-6-1983 against the petitioner and four others under section302/307/323/148/149, P.P.C. at the instance of Muhammad Siddique complainant in village Hurki on 1-6-1983 at about 10 a. m. there took place a dispute as to the use of a Thresher. The petitioner and others were already threshing their wheat with the thresher wanted by the complainant party. On exchange of hot words the petitioner and others flared up. Lai Din accused raised a Lalkara urging as not to spare the complainant party that they would not have the thresher. Muhammad Ashraf took hold of a Saria. Khushi Muhammad lay his hand on a having instrument with iron fingers. M thammad Aslam took hold of Kassi and the petitioner got hold of a Saria which was lying on the ground. near the thresher. Muhammad Aslam caused a blow from the blunt side of Kasai to the deceased Muhammad Latif which hit him on the back side of his head. Muhammad Ashraf, caused a Saris blow hitting the deceased on the frontal parietal region. The petitioner gave a blow which hit the deceased on the left side of the head. After receiving the injuries the deceased fell on the ground. When the complainant intended to intervene he was attacked by Khushi Muhammad who caused a blow with the having instrument on the right ear of the complainant. Thereafter Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Ashraf, Khushi Muhammad and the petitioner caused injuries with their respective weapons to the complainant, Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Aslam collectively. On the hue and cry of the complainant party Rehmat and Muhammad Sadiq appeared at the scene and with a difficulty got them freed from the hands of the assailants. After that other persons were attracted to the scene. Bashir Ahmad carried the deceased to the hospital where he died at about 2-45 p.m. on 11-6-1983.

2. The petitioner moved the Sessions Court for bail. The bail application came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot who while admitting Lai Din accused to bail refused bail to the petitioner vide his order dated 24-9-1983.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a delay of three days in the lodging of the F.I.R. the narration as set out in the F.I.R. itself shows that it was a sudden development to be precisely called as a sudden flare up at the threshing flour of the petitioner and the co-accused. The injury attributed qua the deceased to the petitioner has been returned as simple per postmortem report. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the incident took place without any design or concert and being a sudden development the vicarious liability is not attracted, if at all the petitioner is liable to individual liability and as the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple, therefore, the offence as it stands vis-a-vis him does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P. C . The injuries caused to the P.Ws. have been also returned as simple. He has further submitted that the D.S.P. has mentioned in his report that during the investigation certain respectable persons appeared before him who said that the petitioner though present at the place of occurrence yet he was empty handed.

4. The learned counsel for the State has resisted the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. as well as has been attributed a role of causing an injure on the head of the deceased. The injury on the head being on a vital part speaks of his object in common with others. He caused injuries to others as well. He has next submitted that in this case section 149 P.P.C. stands attracted and this case will not be ultimately a case of individual liability. As to the delay in the F.I.R. he has relied upon the statement of the complainant appearing in the F.I.R. that the complainant did not approach the police immediately thereafter since he waited for his brother who had gone to Sukkur.

5. The deceased received 13 injuries. Injury No. 2 attributed to the petitioner has been described in the postmortem report as a lacerated wound " x " on parietal area (L). This injury has been expressed according to the report as simple. The deceased is said to have died as a result of injury No.l on the head which was described as grievous alongwith injury No. 8 attributed to others. Muhammad Aslam received a contused wound injury which was expressed as simple. Muhammad Siddique received eight injuries with various dimensions but all were returned as simple.

6. After weighing the facts and the contentions raised by both the learned counsel the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Pasrur. S. G. D. Petition allowed.